Posts by scholar

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 734

In a sense you are right. That is why celebrated WT scholars prefer the term 'pivotal date' as applying to 539 BCE rather than an 'absolute date' which is technically more correct. However, I prefer to use the term 'Absolute Date' in reference to 539 BCE for two reasons: 1. scholar is a sentimental person and loves tradition whiich accompanies WT chronology over many decades. 2. The term is useful as a rehetorical device .

Scholars use several notable eclipses to establish chronology for the Ancient Near East but the Celebrated WT scholars prefer 539 BCE as a pivotal date because it is grounded in both the Bible and secular history as an event and is datable astronomically.

Regards

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

isaacaustin

Post 4220

Your claim that the Gentile Times is bogus and that Dan 4 was only fulfilled in Neb is blatantly false. The evidence that Dan 4 has a major fulfillment is proved by the simple fact that the entire chapter is about God's Sovereignty and His Kingdom clearly something that lay beyond a mere human ruler. Further, Jesus clearly linked the tree dream with Jeusalem in his prophecy and the perspective of history in Luke 21:24.

Your opinion that the seventy years pertained to Babylon's dominion from 609 BCE until 539 BCE implies that the seventy years was Babylon's and not that of Judah. But such an interpretation shifts Judah's punishment of seventy years as stated by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Zecharian to that of Babylon but this is clearly impossible for Jeremiah clearly addressed Babylons's punishment along with the other foreign nations later in his prophecy.

The simple fact is that the seventy years applied to Judah alone and not to Babylon. Nowhere does the Bible state that Babylon was punished for seventy years but what it does state that Judah was to serve Babylon for seventy years thus Babylon's dominion over Judah was for that period of seventy years. All that can be said is the seventy years connected Judah and Babylon because Babylon was the instrument of punishment over Judah which lasted for seventy years.

I cannot answer your final question but I have received much postive feedback.

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

isaacaustin

Post 4221

I replied to almost every argument that Alan F made and if I did not then list them. If you truly believe that Alan F defeated me then please show those points and my replies. The fact is that Alan F tried everything to silence me and failed at every turn. He had some questions that no one could answer so scholar came to the rescue. These debates are on public record so it is up to others to make their own personal evaluations but please remove the bias and be a little honest with the facts and give due credit where it is due.

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1153

Another pasting I think O Alas! Pray tell Why is it the case that there are so many hands on the 'brush', would not one suffice?

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

PSacremento

Post 1861

609 BCE is not universally accepted as the end of the Assyrian Empire, it is accepted only by some scholars and apostates. Check it out!

607 BCE is based on the Bible and secular evidence, it is also strengthened by the fact that it is a prophetic date, no such claim can be made for the other 'false 'dates. The only thing that is thrown out of whack are the false assumptions of NB chronology whereby there is at least a twenty year gap.

You are somewhat puzzled by the fact that there is the same evidence for 539 BCE as for 587 BCE. Why are you puzzled? Perhaps you fail to understand something. If what you say is correct then why is not 587 regarded by scholars as an Absolute Date as with 539 BCE? That is a question for all the smarts on this board?

The answer to your last question is Methodology.

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

isaacaustin

Post 4224

It all boils down to Methodology.

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

Alwayshere

Post 637

The references to the seventy years in Zechariah simply attest to the simple fact that the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem had for the past seventy years memorialized their fate of deportation, exile and the destruction of their Temple and city. The seventy years therein was that same period from the Fall in 607 BCE until their Return in 537 BCE. There is simply nothing in those texts that support your nonsense.

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

garyneal

Post 218

The date 607 BCE and 1914 CE are very important to sincere Bible Students because these dates relate to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. It is not surprising that the churches of Christendom have no interest in such matters because they have no belief or interest in Bible prophecy.

The dropping of 1914 CE is merely a product of your fanciful imagination, the date marks an event grounded in Scripture revolving around the reality of God's Kingdom. Perhaps, you should pay close attention to the Lord's Prayer.

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 13750

That is why one must look heavenward. LOL...

scholar JW

160

Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink in

i hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.

she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!

lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.

scholar

PSacremento

Post 1860

The date 609 BCE for the end of the Assyrian Power is a matter of some conjecture by scholars because no date for this has been universally accepted. Therefore, such a date is useless for determing the beginning of a definite fixed period of history such as the 'seventy years'. Even Carl Jonsson was uncertain about whether 609 or 605 BCE should be employed because most scholars favour 605 BCE for its beginning but if it ended in 539 BCE according to popular opinion then you would have sixty-six years rather than the biblical 'seventy'. That is one problem. The other problem is that if you end the seventy years at 539 BCE then ou arrive at 609 BCE but that years is too 'fuuzy' to begin a an historic period of seventyh years especially when at that time Babylon as a World Power was in its embryonic stage.

That is why 607BCE is a superior date because it uses notable events and dates at either end which are confiremed by secular and biblical history, the other dates such as 587 or 586 BCE are 'mired' in problems everywhere.

scholar JW